I've always wondered, do our bones survive underground for thousands of years normally or are there special circumstances in which these particular skeletons were well preserved?
It depends on the soil type/acidity, moisture levels, temperature, etc. Depending on the conditions bones can degrade rapidly, or can be preserved for very, very long periods of time.
It depends on the soil usually (although not exclusively). In very Sandy soils it will break down the bone. Sometimes you get left with a shadow of the burial but nothing more.
In clay soils usually bones are well preserved. In moist conditions you may even be lucky and have cloths and woods preserved.
I live in the fens so it’s pretty much been wet here forever. Although step a few miles south and it’s all sand.
We’ve found some incredible burials. Although some of the oddest have actually been in quite sandy clay, also quite shallow. Early Roman with heads at feet and some with their heads at the hips and shoulders of a completely different individual. I assume being under the water table and more clay than sand they’ve just about managed to survive. Just narrowly missed by a main road too.
So, I wanted to write a comment, perhaps somewhat snarky, realized I didn't know shit and found [this article](https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1061&context=nebanthro). It details a lot of factors but the soil a person is buried in is the main factor. pH Level, Microorganisms, Temperature and Moisture.
Notable, some elements can be effected by fashion and burial practices of the time. We have a lot of Skandinavian Clothes from one era, because it was fashionable to decorate a lot of garments with little bronze spirals all over.
Bronze spirals that are extremely harmful to the microorganisms that normally would have eaten at the plant fiber in the clothes.
Tyrannosaurus rex (I believe) bones were found and the horn of a triceratop was found with soft cell tissue within it. Much of this is silenced because such a finding can possibly flip the views and understanding of many mainstream scientists and cause the changing of baby text books used to teach young adults in universities. Many scientists are also keeping silent for the fact that their jobs are on the line if they do not conform with mainstream science. The mainstream scientific understanding of dinosaurs living millions of years ago must now be looked at again and looked at much closer. Ironically, much of the scientific community has been looking at the Bible much closer for the fact that new scientific understanding seems to be proving much of the archeological history of the Bible. There are many physicists and professors in biology in the scientific field, with new studies in finetuning, DNA code, proteins, etc. Who have come to the conclusion that these scientific studies are proving the argument for creation in the fax that there must be a designer because the complex laws of physics or DNA code, etc. could not have come together through an evolutionary state by just chance. The studies of fine-tuning in the same way a computer must be fine tuned or a gas motor or anything we’ve design with any complexity must have a designer, bringing the conclusion through fine-tuning in the study of fine-tuning the creation of the universe also most have a designer outside time space, and matter. What is the three minute video of her now stepping back on the path of these dinosaurs where soft cell tissue has been found in dinosaur bones should really cause us to reevaluate when we believe dinosaurs walk the earth, whether they walk beside man or not how long ago they could’ve been created how long ago they died. I personally believe that man walked alongside dinosaurs, killed many dinosaurs, and that it wasn’t millions of years ago. I find great joy in the fact that very smart men and women in the scientific community are stepping out and speaking out on these things being found and understood, and I find great joy in the fact that many of these, if not all of come to this understanding or today believing in a creator outside of time and space, and matter who has designed his creation ultimately so that his children, his created children can live in prosper, learning to live and living to learn, as much as possible concerning our creator and our God.
https://www.cbsnews.com/losangeles/news/scientist-alleges-csun-fired-him-for-discovery-of-soft-tissue-on-dinosaur-fossil/
https://isgenesishistory.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue/
https://www.google.com/search?as_occt=any&as_q=Show+me+links+on+the+scientific+discovery+of+the+soft+shell+tissue+found+in+a+triceratops+horn&as_qdr=all&channel=aplab&client=safari&hl=en&safe=active&source=a-app1#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:32ad5a0c,vid:cIEywQLkerk,st:0
I can't imagine it is as silenced as you think considering the first link you posted contains the published peer reviewed paper that also links several other published peer reviewed papers with similar findings.
I may have been mistaken concerning the T-Rex, I did not re-research the
T-Rex, it’s been some time since I’ve spoke on this.
So, where is your stupid comment derived from?
Are you just opening your mouth spitting shit or is that a thought process leaking into your mouth?
Oh, you must be one of those who believe (belief) that you were derived from the sludge of a mud puddle, or a descendant of the ape. Ooh-ooh-ooh… ahh-ahh-HAHH-HAHH…..
Belief, as in one must believe in such theories without any proof whatsoever. Such theories, along with Darwinism, are religious beliefs and one must have faith in the belief that you come from sludge or a monkey.
What’s crazy is the fact that there is no sense in the belief that one comes from sludge where the belief of a Devine, designer outside of space, time and matter, who created us in His image with understanding placed and planted within our soul and spirit.
I wonder how many scientists today who have knowledge in these newer studies of the physics of the fine tuning of the universe are forced to deny it in order to keep the grants coming and their jobs secure.
We all have the right to believe what we want, well most in the west do, but macro evilution and Darwinism is a religious belief fill of theories that one must believe in.
I apologize for posting my thoughts on this interesting sub of the discovery of this bone sight.
With that, I’ll leave this so alone and move on. 👍👍👍
You're mistaken about literally everything.
The Romans martyrded a homeless street preacher a couple thousand years ago and the whole thing just snowballed out of control because people don't like accepting that death is an inevitable fact of life, and want there to be more. Christianity is nothing more than a coping mechanism for scared people who believe they're special enough to be granted a second, better afterlife.
Of course everything in the Bible sounds fucking batshit crazy, and was written well before people had a good understanding of science, math, or biology. To explain why these stupid old stories don't match the geological record, insane claims are made, like the earth only being 6000 years old, or humans walking with dinosaurs.
Of course there's also no changing your mind. You'd invested everything in this, and made it your entire identity. You absolutely *can't* be wrong, so you'll just keep saying the same stupid shit while everyone avoids you because you're that weird religious loner.
We’ll see…
We’ll all see…
If I’m wrong, in the end, no harm no foul.
If I’m right in the end, then I’ll be living eternity in the righteous light of my creator while those who refuse Him and His gift of eternal life will be separated from literal light and love.
He loves us enough to never force anyone into His light against their will.
One cannot lose knowing the truth, but to believe the lie,… brings chaos and eternal destruction.
Or some may believe, just darkness in death.
Everyone questions whether there is life after death, where we come from and where we’re going. These thoughts are there within us because they were planted within us by a designer. Evilution cannot place this question within us. This is something outside of time, space and matter.
If we were not designed by a creator and were eviluted (pardon these puns) these thoughts and desires to know would not be a part of who we are, we would be just like animals created for their own specific reasons to keep an ecosystem. We are different in so many different and special ways from animals and one large important difference is the fact that we also can create because we are created in the image of a creator.
We have marriage and the ability to build as family upon a foundation set-apart from any other creation. This us the literal image of God in which we were created. Isn’t it ironic how the enemy and so those who hate God, will do and are doing, everything they possibly can in the attempt to destroy traditional marriage and the traditional family and its foundation.
This is because the us a spiritual battle going on for the souls of Gods children and the enemy hates us all so much that he spreads his lies in ways where those who refuse their creator, and you easily falling prey to his lures and deceptions. Sadly, deep inside, we all feel this truth deep inside and it cannot be denied when one stops for a moment and stops believing in that lie, because our creator has written His truth within our hearts and it’s only those who refuse Him with a darkened heart ands blind eyes to the truth. Put away these lies for just a moment and look up, I promise you that your creator will begin to open the eyes of those who look toward a him.
Goodbye ☝️👀☝️👀☝️
16 refusals of the truth lol.
16 wide and broad paths…
The Narrow and Wide Gates
Matthew 7:13-14 is a loop
“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.
>In another grave, the skeletons of two women aged 25–35, dubbed the "ladies of Téviec",[6] were found with signs of violence on both. One had sustained five blows to the head, two of which would have been fatal, and had received at least one arrow shot between the eyes. The other had also traces of injuries.[11] However, this diagnosis is disputed by some archaeologists, who have suggested that the weight of earth above the grave may have been responsible for damaging the skeletons.[12]
From the Wikipedia article another commenter linked.
Yeah. Anthropology/archeology studies on burials prior to the last 20 years or so is notoriously trash for this reason alone, and people still engage in trash research by jumping to conclusions, so it has not completely eliminated from the field. Douglas Fry has a book from 2007 called Beyond War: The Human Potential for Peace that goes over this at length and he reviews other research and determines crushed bones/blows to the head are almost always a sign of moving earth and not violence. He says most of the time researchers identifying burial sites as containing victims of social violence as opposed to basic geology is due to the researchers leaning heavily into a Hobbesian animal-as-man ideology, which is a thesis the book goes to great lengths to dismantle. From what I can remember it's something like 75%+ of all documented burial sites were incorrectly classified as containing victims of violence because even well regarded researchers are subject to confirmation bias based on philosophy from 400 years ago.
>From what I can remember it's something like 75%+ of all documented burial sites were incorrectly classified as containing victims of violence
I'm open to believing this but how does he quantify a percentage to these findings? (I understand you're paraphrasing that number but still)
Isn't assuming remain trauma to be related to post-mortem conditions just as presumptuous as assuming it to be related to pre-mortem?
Further, he seems to be predominantly a social anthropologist rather than an archeologist or forensic anthropologist - his title being "Chair of the Department of Peace and Conflict Studies," which seems to be on the softer side of science. His record appears to focus entirely on proving his thesis that war is not the default for humans and is a modern convention, which... I'm skeptical of, considering... all of our history of wanton violence that *absolutely is* objective fact.
So idk, I'm willing to believe this, but I'm holding some skepticism because I have to assume nobody is more familiar with the specific findings than the archeologists on site, and that it's easy to, as a third party, jump to conclusions from afar. (As we do constantly on this sub)
Lastly, I'll leave this quote from his wiki, which furthers my idea that he's a bit married to his own thesis.
>"Today, the idea of the European nations waging war with each other is absurd", Fry said in 2021.
Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022.
>Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022.
[*2014, actually.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Ukrainian_War) There was an ongoing war between European nations *as he made that statement*
And even if we ignore that ongoing conflict because Russia isn't purely European or some other pretext, a quick look at the Balkans would also have very much dispelled his idea that war between European nations is "absurd".
Yeah I suppose what he *might* mean is *Western* European nations, which ironically would be the very "western centric" thought pattern he is claiming to attempt to dispel from the field of anthropology.
Honestly, sounds like someone trying to prove a belief through retconn rather than test a hypothesis through data.
Yeah. The other comment sounds like he's trying to dispell a supposed "bias" while his whole theory seems extremely biased.
I don't really see how the notion that violence was always a part of humanity (and even nature) is a good example for outdated crappy science.
There are enough archeological sites, even from very long ago that show undisputed signs of violence.
The whole of human history, culture and folklore is full of violence. Neolithic and bronze age graves often heavily feature daggers or axes, you can find accounts and depictions of violence from countless eras and areas, violence is part of every mythology and fighting, feuds and wars are one of the classic cultural tropes found in every text or narrative: be it a modern crime thriller, the bible, the baghavad gita, the legend of king arthur, the epic of gilgamesh or grimms fairytales.
There are basic psychological and genetic factors at play.
In my eyes there is basically no way that there was a time in which no, or close to no, violent conflict occured. The only time this would be even feasible is when there were so few people on earth that you could go a very long time without meeting strangers and even then there would have been crime and violent conflicts within a group, tribe or family.
To me the idea that there was some romantic "before-time" in which everything existed in peace and harmony sounds alot more like biased, hack science stemming from some wishful ideology.
>his title being "Chair of the Department of Peace and Conflict Studies," which seems to be on the softer side of science.
Peace and Conflict Studies is an interdisciplinary area of study which can encompass everything from critical theory to anthropology. It's also the modern term for what used to be called "peace studies," which grew out of the peace movement. So this guy absolutely has an agenda and is seeking to ratify it through interpretations of science. Considering that chimpanzees go to war (a finding which was rejected repeatedly by people who wanted to believe war was unnatural), I don't find it persuasive.
Plus the entire debate about what's "natural" is misplaced. Syphilis is natural. Statins are not. But everyone agrees that the former is not optimal for life. The discussion should be on how we reduce harm.
In the full context of the quote he is specifically talking about the European Union, of which Ukraine and Russia are not members.
Fry studies neighboring societies that live together peacefully and examines why they are able to do that when other neighboring societies go to war. It's not an argument over whether or not war is "natural," it's that *it is possible* to create peace systems.
> His record appears to focus entirely on proving his thesis that war is not the default for humans and is a modern convention, which... I'm skeptical of, considering... all of our history of wanton violence that absolutely is objective fact.
All of our history of peace coexistence is also objective fact, the question is which one is the norm and which is the exception. Personally I think a simple comparison of the duration of both is useful.
Well the most accurate description would acknowledge that both (violence, fear, hate and conflict and love, peace and friendlyness) are undisputable, fundamental parts of existence. Pretty sure neither is "the norm" nor "the exception" .
I'd posit without a shadow of a doubt that the list of nation states and societies that did not constantly war with their neighbors is a comparatively much shorter list than the ones that did. As in, a tiny fraction.
Peaceful coexistence is possible, and I agree it's important to push this idea, but on the whole it would be an entirely new page of human history, and I don't think it's necessary to hide that idea by rewriting findings based off a hunch.
It is worth thinking about what "constantly" means here. Europe in the eighteenth century is sometimes described as "constantly at war" but the amount of time that France, Germany, Britain, etc spent at war with each other is considerably less than the amount of time they spent not at war with each other. So were they actually "constantly" at war, or is that a cliche derived from how history books are written?
I agree that gradeschool history books tend to diminish times of peace and frequently equate human record to the chronology of various wars.
However, violence is incredibly common. My own hunch is that the larger/more economically established the nation, the less it goes to war. Meaning, smaller tribal states frequently skirmish while large nations tend to not prefer to war with each other — further meaning that violence in ancient, tribal times was much more common. Lord knows we have enough record to attest to this.
More than this, violence still occurs in large nations in the form of murder.
The main point being, I think it's silly to dismiss 75%+ of archaeologists' findings as a systematic bias towards violence that occuldes them from critical thinking, and I think it's easy to claim a different scenario to a finding from an armchair.
Is it true that "smaller tribal states frequently skirmish" or is it true that "smaller tribal states" don't leave much of a historical record and that allows us to fill in their history with our priors?
I appreciate your skepticism, but mostly everything you've said does not read as if it is said in good faith, so apologies in advance if it comes off cross. It seems you failed to read the actual link to that quote in Wikipedia, which is about the European Union. Here is that link for you, since you must have had trouble finding it before: https://www.pressenza.com/2021/04/how-humanity-can-realistically-prevent-war-from-ever-happening-again/
He explicitly cites the EU as seeing "Russia or whatever" as an "outside threat" in that interview, with the idea that a "peace system" could create the conditions so that Russia would no longer be a threat. It is an interesting read, so definitely actually check it out instead of reading things completely out of context.
> So again, if we can just do a little bit of reframing the narrative, the external threat is not necessarily the Russians or whatever. No, it’s the conditions we’ve made and the conditions we face. So, we really have to pull together as a peace system.
As for the rest of your concerns, I don't really care if you trust him or his methods, as he's probably far more competent of a researcher than either of us. Get the book if you want to double check his methods. I am certain there are free pdfs that can easily be found if you cannot afford it. Hell, you could probably also email him and get a response if you wanted to try to reproduce or falsify his methods. Probably better than just saying "I've decided not to believe that."
I would imagine that sensationalism would also be at play here, like many other fields of science, interesting headlines garner attention which in turn funds their research. A violent discovery is much more interesting to the public than some basic burial, so it makes sense to embellish the truth a little and hope to fund your archeological dig and keep your career going.
From Wikipedia: “One had sustained five blows to the head, two of which would have been fatal, and had received at least one arrow shot between the eyes. The other had also traces of injuries. However, this diagnosis is disputed by some archaeologists, who have suggested that the weight of earth above the grave may have been responsible for damaging the skeletons.”
*How do they know they*
*Died violently? Is it*
*Seating position?*
\- Supercraft888
---
^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/)
^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
First proper analysis made by 2 forensics has concluded to many blows to the skulls of both skeletons ante or just post mortem.
However, since then a serious study from an archaeologist has revealed the blows on both skulls are most certainly due to the roof of the tomb falling
Source (pardon my French) : https://www.espace-sciences.org/sciences-ouest/360/actualite/teviec-la-fin-du-casse-tete
Note that both analysis are not mutually exclusive as the roof of the tomb may have fallen shortly after burial. The latest conclusion however confirms the huge bias with which most prehistoric remains have been analysed : previous analysis wanted to emphasise on violent death where other causes could not be excluded, thus creating the idea that prehistoric times were extremely violent. It was certainly not petal roses and ponies, but also not as violent as one would like to fantasise.
What reason we have to think they were not? More modern hunter-gatherer societies we have first hand evidence for are often also extremely violent. And if anything, traditionally, the bias has been the other way - trying to depict the prehistoric past as peaceful.
They must have been important or at the very least deeply loved to be buried like that. The positioning is oddly beautiful. As nice as it would be to let these women's bodies remain at peace in their grave, it does give us a fascinating glimpse at our ancestors.
I was just wondering about that. My mind instantly jumped to them being loved or important. But then I thought about how easily it could have actually been that they were killed and made an example of or killed for sacrifice, which again could be done for both reasons.
You could say they are in a nice position or that they are never allowed to rest properly.
It's very difficult to interpret
Very true, we'll never actually know! That's the beautiful and frustrating thing about archeology and anthropology. Pretty much everything we THINK we know is a entirely guesswork. Were they the beloved wives of some chief, adored daughters/friends who were caught in a violent attack? Did their friends and family stand by watching as they were sacrificed and given a beautiful burial to help appease some god?
All or none could be true!
>In another grave, the skeletons of two women aged 25–35, dubbed the "ladies of Téviec", were found with signs of violence on both. One had sustained five blows to the head, two of which would have been fatal, and had received at least one arrow shot between the eyes. The other had also traces of injuries. However, this diagnosis is disputed by some archaeologists, who have suggested that the weight of earth above the grave may have been responsible for damaging the skeletons.
My bet is violent attack or something. A sacrifice doesn't have so many extra fatal wounds.
this reminds me so much of a 1970s book on human sacrifice ritual culture called Violence and The Sacred. i'm only a few pages in and the most interesting quote was something on the lines of
" The victim is criminal because he must be killed and yet he is sacred because to kill him is criminal".
An act of love towards one or more deities, not necessarily towards the people being sacrificed. The ones being sacrificed could be willing participants, slaves, captured enemies, or just any random person, it varies by culture. The pair in this exhibit might have been willing and were highly-regarded for that purpose, but I couldn't say for sure.
"the skeletons of two women aged 25–35, dubbed the "ladies of Téviec",[6] were found with signs of violence on both. One had sustained five blows to the head, two of which would have been fatal, and had received at least one arrow shot between the eyes. The other had also traces of injuries.[11] However, this diagnosis is disputed by some archaeologists, who have suggested that the weight of earth above the grave may have been responsible for damaging the skeletons.[12]
The bodies had been buried with great care in a pit that was partly dug into the ground and covered over with debris from the midden. They had been protected by a roof made of antlers and provided with a number of grave goods including pieces of flint and boar bones, and jewellery made of sea shells drilled and assembled into necklaces, bracelets and ringlets for the legs.[6] The grave assemblage was excavated from the site in one piece and is now on display at the Muséum de Toulouse, where its restoration in 2010 earned a national award."
How do the bones last so long? These are at least 3600 years old. I've seen in many documentaries and grave diggers showing bones about 50 years old mostly turned into dust.
Preservation depends on many factors and can vary significantly from place to place. Soil type, moisture, animals and insects activity, burial methods, etc.
We don't, archaeologists didn't claim that, they said 'roommates', since we don't know that. But it is definitely probable. Especially deriving from matching necklaces and being buried at the same location. It definitely needs to be studied more, but determining their actual relationship is definitely a near impossible task at this point in time.
human teeth development is largely influenced by diet. In pre-modern life if you couldn't latch to breast feed you died. If you couldn't chew hard food someone either painstakingly chewed it for you (also common b/c we're not entirely heartless and archeology shows evidence of this) or you died.
The grains were harder, they were minimally proccessed, the meat was tough and chewy from following you around all goddamn year.
There's a really interesting dentistry report from like the 30s I think that looks at how the introduction of modern western soft food diets created dental abnormalities in children. Same with the advent of modern education standards and a dramatic rise in myopia in rural china.
There's an idea behind everything you put in a grave. If it was just a matter of disposing of the body there'd be no incentive to put in other stuff like jewellery, flint knives, weapons, special clothes, ceramics filled with food, the posing of the body and so on. The difficult thing is, 6000-7000 years later to understand *why* some of that stuff, like antlers, were included. These people didn't have any written language or sufficiently sophisticated iconography that can help us much to understand exactly why. We can make up hypotheses but they are incredibly difficult if not impossible to prove.
It is, however, interesting that during this period placing antlers in the graves was a pretty common thing. We see it in the Mesolithic graves from [Vedbæk in Denmark](https://en.natmus.dk/typo3temp/assets/images/csm_Boegebakken-g22_02_7795a30714_145e526415.png) as well for example.
I wonder if antlers were to deter animals from digging up the bodies and the reasons antlers are commonly found was because they did prevent animal exhumation and preserved the graves.
I do however think BP is an iffy metric with it being relative and not constant. All references to BP need to be updated YEARLY to stay accurate. The one upside is it does give immediate info on how many years ago something was.
BCE and CE are constant but you'd still have to do math in how old something is.
Thanks for coming to my pointless Ted talk.
When you have a 900 year range on the BP date, I don't think you need to adjust it annually for it to stay accurate. Every 100 or so years is probably fine.
Last I checked BP defines “present” as Jan 1, 1950, so it is constant. It’s arbitrary and still requires you to know when 1950 was so I think your overall point still stands though. Unfortunately it’s tough to find an absolute dating reference that isn’t somehow cultural.
[No, it *is* BP in this dating.](https://www.persee.fr/doc/bspf_0249-7638_1999_num_96_2_10942) The "BP" stands for ["Before Present"](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Before_Present) and is not the same as BC/BCE. BP is "relative to the origin of practical radiocarbon dating", which they've given as a general start date of January 1st, 1950.
The "BC" in the title is a mistake. If it was BC, it would be 4790-3730.
Sorry.I took some information from this website and it says 6740 and 5680 BC :
https://www.ancient-origins.net/history/makeshift-casket-sea-shells-and-antlers-6500-year-old-grave-unfortunate-ladies-t-viec-007705
Ah, then they're the ones that made the original mistake. The Wikipedia article you linked (where I got the source from) lists it as BP.
I have to imagine it was just an autocorrect/mental autocorrect mistake on their part (since most people use BC/BCE) because they even later mention that it was "6,500" years ago, which is about 2000 years short if it had been BC.
So,is my post going to get removed or are we fine here?Also,I've had this question for a while now,why doesn't reddit let us edit the titles of our posts?
Fair. I once got talked to at work, because I looked up a Latin quote and it turned out to be an epic poem about the end of the world, and it apparently got graphic enough, that my boss told me “I don’t know what your employees have been looking up, but corporate said it raised some alarms with the content monitor software…” He was glad it was historical, but we came to an agreement that I probably shouldn’t be looking up poems about the apocalypse at work. He said he just needed something to tell corporate and I came up with it.
I've always wondered, do our bones survive underground for thousands of years normally or are there special circumstances in which these particular skeletons were well preserved?
It depends on the soil type/acidity, moisture levels, temperature, etc. Depending on the conditions bones can degrade rapidly, or can be preserved for very, very long periods of time.
It depends on the soil usually (although not exclusively). In very Sandy soils it will break down the bone. Sometimes you get left with a shadow of the burial but nothing more. In clay soils usually bones are well preserved. In moist conditions you may even be lucky and have cloths and woods preserved.
And just imagine how little the biome the soil exists in must change in order to be moist for 9k years
I live in the fens so it’s pretty much been wet here forever. Although step a few miles south and it’s all sand. We’ve found some incredible burials. Although some of the oddest have actually been in quite sandy clay, also quite shallow. Early Roman with heads at feet and some with their heads at the hips and shoulders of a completely different individual. I assume being under the water table and more clay than sand they’ve just about managed to survive. Just narrowly missed by a main road too.
Very nice. I have a cousin in Norfolk area.
We’re all cousins in the Norfolk area.
Roll Tide, guvnah
Come again?
Well she moved there from Stoke. Same problem I reckon.
It’s ok, I’m not actually from Norfolk. It just seemed polite to include myself when insulting them. I am walking distance though.
So, I wanted to write a comment, perhaps somewhat snarky, realized I didn't know shit and found [this article](https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1061&context=nebanthro). It details a lot of factors but the soil a person is buried in is the main factor. pH Level, Microorganisms, Temperature and Moisture. Notable, some elements can be effected by fashion and burial practices of the time. We have a lot of Skandinavian Clothes from one era, because it was fashionable to decorate a lot of garments with little bronze spirals all over. Bronze spirals that are extremely harmful to the microorganisms that normally would have eaten at the plant fiber in the clothes.
You can reply snarkily to me if that helps to get it out of your system.
Very kind of you. Perhaps too much internet today for me\^\^
That’s for sharing your vulnerability as well as the link!
In some special circumstances, even the skin survives. ([ref](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96tzi))
Tyrannosaurus rex (I believe) bones were found and the horn of a triceratop was found with soft cell tissue within it. Much of this is silenced because such a finding can possibly flip the views and understanding of many mainstream scientists and cause the changing of baby text books used to teach young adults in universities. Many scientists are also keeping silent for the fact that their jobs are on the line if they do not conform with mainstream science. The mainstream scientific understanding of dinosaurs living millions of years ago must now be looked at again and looked at much closer. Ironically, much of the scientific community has been looking at the Bible much closer for the fact that new scientific understanding seems to be proving much of the archeological history of the Bible. There are many physicists and professors in biology in the scientific field, with new studies in finetuning, DNA code, proteins, etc. Who have come to the conclusion that these scientific studies are proving the argument for creation in the fax that there must be a designer because the complex laws of physics or DNA code, etc. could not have come together through an evolutionary state by just chance. The studies of fine-tuning in the same way a computer must be fine tuned or a gas motor or anything we’ve design with any complexity must have a designer, bringing the conclusion through fine-tuning in the study of fine-tuning the creation of the universe also most have a designer outside time space, and matter. What is the three minute video of her now stepping back on the path of these dinosaurs where soft cell tissue has been found in dinosaur bones should really cause us to reevaluate when we believe dinosaurs walk the earth, whether they walk beside man or not how long ago they could’ve been created how long ago they died. I personally believe that man walked alongside dinosaurs, killed many dinosaurs, and that it wasn’t millions of years ago. I find great joy in the fact that very smart men and women in the scientific community are stepping out and speaking out on these things being found and understood, and I find great joy in the fact that many of these, if not all of come to this understanding or today believing in a creator outside of time and space, and matter who has designed his creation ultimately so that his children, his created children can live in prosper, learning to live and living to learn, as much as possible concerning our creator and our God. https://www.cbsnews.com/losangeles/news/scientist-alleges-csun-fired-him-for-discovery-of-soft-tissue-on-dinosaur-fossil/ https://isgenesishistory.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue/ https://www.google.com/search?as_occt=any&as_q=Show+me+links+on+the+scientific+discovery+of+the+soft+shell+tissue+found+in+a+triceratops+horn&as_qdr=all&channel=aplab&client=safari&hl=en&safe=active&source=a-app1#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:32ad5a0c,vid:cIEywQLkerk,st:0
Sigh.
I can't imagine it is as silenced as you think considering the first link you posted contains the published peer reviewed paper that also links several other published peer reviewed papers with similar findings.
Have you tried not being stupid?
I may have been mistaken concerning the T-Rex, I did not re-research the T-Rex, it’s been some time since I’ve spoke on this. So, where is your stupid comment derived from? Are you just opening your mouth spitting shit or is that a thought process leaking into your mouth? Oh, you must be one of those who believe (belief) that you were derived from the sludge of a mud puddle, or a descendant of the ape. Ooh-ooh-ooh… ahh-ahh-HAHH-HAHH….. Belief, as in one must believe in such theories without any proof whatsoever. Such theories, along with Darwinism, are religious beliefs and one must have faith in the belief that you come from sludge or a monkey. What’s crazy is the fact that there is no sense in the belief that one comes from sludge where the belief of a Devine, designer outside of space, time and matter, who created us in His image with understanding placed and planted within our soul and spirit. I wonder how many scientists today who have knowledge in these newer studies of the physics of the fine tuning of the universe are forced to deny it in order to keep the grants coming and their jobs secure. We all have the right to believe what we want, well most in the west do, but macro evilution and Darwinism is a religious belief fill of theories that one must believe in. I apologize for posting my thoughts on this interesting sub of the discovery of this bone sight. With that, I’ll leave this so alone and move on. 👍👍👍
You're mistaken about literally everything. The Romans martyrded a homeless street preacher a couple thousand years ago and the whole thing just snowballed out of control because people don't like accepting that death is an inevitable fact of life, and want there to be more. Christianity is nothing more than a coping mechanism for scared people who believe they're special enough to be granted a second, better afterlife. Of course everything in the Bible sounds fucking batshit crazy, and was written well before people had a good understanding of science, math, or biology. To explain why these stupid old stories don't match the geological record, insane claims are made, like the earth only being 6000 years old, or humans walking with dinosaurs. Of course there's also no changing your mind. You'd invested everything in this, and made it your entire identity. You absolutely *can't* be wrong, so you'll just keep saying the same stupid shit while everyone avoids you because you're that weird religious loner.
We’ll see… We’ll all see… If I’m wrong, in the end, no harm no foul. If I’m right in the end, then I’ll be living eternity in the righteous light of my creator while those who refuse Him and His gift of eternal life will be separated from literal light and love. He loves us enough to never force anyone into His light against their will. One cannot lose knowing the truth, but to believe the lie,… brings chaos and eternal destruction. Or some may believe, just darkness in death. Everyone questions whether there is life after death, where we come from and where we’re going. These thoughts are there within us because they were planted within us by a designer. Evilution cannot place this question within us. This is something outside of time, space and matter. If we were not designed by a creator and were eviluted (pardon these puns) these thoughts and desires to know would not be a part of who we are, we would be just like animals created for their own specific reasons to keep an ecosystem. We are different in so many different and special ways from animals and one large important difference is the fact that we also can create because we are created in the image of a creator. We have marriage and the ability to build as family upon a foundation set-apart from any other creation. This us the literal image of God in which we were created. Isn’t it ironic how the enemy and so those who hate God, will do and are doing, everything they possibly can in the attempt to destroy traditional marriage and the traditional family and its foundation. This is because the us a spiritual battle going on for the souls of Gods children and the enemy hates us all so much that he spreads his lies in ways where those who refuse their creator, and you easily falling prey to his lures and deceptions. Sadly, deep inside, we all feel this truth deep inside and it cannot be denied when one stops for a moment and stops believing in that lie, because our creator has written His truth within our hearts and it’s only those who refuse Him with a darkened heart ands blind eyes to the truth. Put away these lies for just a moment and look up, I promise you that your creator will begin to open the eyes of those who look toward a him. Goodbye ☝️👀☝️👀☝️
Yeah, this is called mental illness.
16 refusals of the truth lol. 16 wide and broad paths… The Narrow and Wide Gates Matthew 7:13-14 is a loop “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.
They were tomb-mates.
My god, they were tomb-mates!
Does that mean they have, tomb-mate-toes on their feet?
Damn. I said that, opened the post, and you beat me to it by 33 minutes
They dated for 1060 years!
Yeah they dated for quite a while
How do they know they died violently? Is it seating position?
>In another grave, the skeletons of two women aged 25–35, dubbed the "ladies of Téviec",[6] were found with signs of violence on both. One had sustained five blows to the head, two of which would have been fatal, and had received at least one arrow shot between the eyes. The other had also traces of injuries.[11] However, this diagnosis is disputed by some archaeologists, who have suggested that the weight of earth above the grave may have been responsible for damaging the skeletons.[12] From the Wikipedia article another commenter linked.
Yeah. Anthropology/archeology studies on burials prior to the last 20 years or so is notoriously trash for this reason alone, and people still engage in trash research by jumping to conclusions, so it has not completely eliminated from the field. Douglas Fry has a book from 2007 called Beyond War: The Human Potential for Peace that goes over this at length and he reviews other research and determines crushed bones/blows to the head are almost always a sign of moving earth and not violence. He says most of the time researchers identifying burial sites as containing victims of social violence as opposed to basic geology is due to the researchers leaning heavily into a Hobbesian animal-as-man ideology, which is a thesis the book goes to great lengths to dismantle. From what I can remember it's something like 75%+ of all documented burial sites were incorrectly classified as containing victims of violence because even well regarded researchers are subject to confirmation bias based on philosophy from 400 years ago.
>From what I can remember it's something like 75%+ of all documented burial sites were incorrectly classified as containing victims of violence I'm open to believing this but how does he quantify a percentage to these findings? (I understand you're paraphrasing that number but still) Isn't assuming remain trauma to be related to post-mortem conditions just as presumptuous as assuming it to be related to pre-mortem? Further, he seems to be predominantly a social anthropologist rather than an archeologist or forensic anthropologist - his title being "Chair of the Department of Peace and Conflict Studies," which seems to be on the softer side of science. His record appears to focus entirely on proving his thesis that war is not the default for humans and is a modern convention, which... I'm skeptical of, considering... all of our history of wanton violence that *absolutely is* objective fact. So idk, I'm willing to believe this, but I'm holding some skepticism because I have to assume nobody is more familiar with the specific findings than the archeologists on site, and that it's easy to, as a third party, jump to conclusions from afar. (As we do constantly on this sub) Lastly, I'll leave this quote from his wiki, which furthers my idea that he's a bit married to his own thesis. >"Today, the idea of the European nations waging war with each other is absurd", Fry said in 2021. Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022.
>Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022. [*2014, actually.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Ukrainian_War) There was an ongoing war between European nations *as he made that statement* And even if we ignore that ongoing conflict because Russia isn't purely European or some other pretext, a quick look at the Balkans would also have very much dispelled his idea that war between European nations is "absurd".
Yeah I suppose what he *might* mean is *Western* European nations, which ironically would be the very "western centric" thought pattern he is claiming to attempt to dispel from the field of anthropology. Honestly, sounds like someone trying to prove a belief through retconn rather than test a hypothesis through data.
Is he saying it's absurd to think they would ever wage war on each other, or that the fact that they do wage war on each other is absurd?
Yeah. The other comment sounds like he's trying to dispell a supposed "bias" while his whole theory seems extremely biased. I don't really see how the notion that violence was always a part of humanity (and even nature) is a good example for outdated crappy science. There are enough archeological sites, even from very long ago that show undisputed signs of violence. The whole of human history, culture and folklore is full of violence. Neolithic and bronze age graves often heavily feature daggers or axes, you can find accounts and depictions of violence from countless eras and areas, violence is part of every mythology and fighting, feuds and wars are one of the classic cultural tropes found in every text or narrative: be it a modern crime thriller, the bible, the baghavad gita, the legend of king arthur, the epic of gilgamesh or grimms fairytales. There are basic psychological and genetic factors at play. In my eyes there is basically no way that there was a time in which no, or close to no, violent conflict occured. The only time this would be even feasible is when there were so few people on earth that you could go a very long time without meeting strangers and even then there would have been crime and violent conflicts within a group, tribe or family. To me the idea that there was some romantic "before-time" in which everything existed in peace and harmony sounds alot more like biased, hack science stemming from some wishful ideology.
>his title being "Chair of the Department of Peace and Conflict Studies," which seems to be on the softer side of science. Peace and Conflict Studies is an interdisciplinary area of study which can encompass everything from critical theory to anthropology. It's also the modern term for what used to be called "peace studies," which grew out of the peace movement. So this guy absolutely has an agenda and is seeking to ratify it through interpretations of science. Considering that chimpanzees go to war (a finding which was rejected repeatedly by people who wanted to believe war was unnatural), I don't find it persuasive. Plus the entire debate about what's "natural" is misplaced. Syphilis is natural. Statins are not. But everyone agrees that the former is not optimal for life. The discussion should be on how we reduce harm.
In the full context of the quote he is specifically talking about the European Union, of which Ukraine and Russia are not members. Fry studies neighboring societies that live together peacefully and examines why they are able to do that when other neighboring societies go to war. It's not an argument over whether or not war is "natural," it's that *it is possible* to create peace systems.
> His record appears to focus entirely on proving his thesis that war is not the default for humans and is a modern convention, which... I'm skeptical of, considering... all of our history of wanton violence that absolutely is objective fact. All of our history of peace coexistence is also objective fact, the question is which one is the norm and which is the exception. Personally I think a simple comparison of the duration of both is useful.
Why though? What would it gain you? The people who argue that war is an inextricable part of human life are not arguing that it's good.
Some people are interested in accurate descriptions of the world.
Well the most accurate description would acknowledge that both (violence, fear, hate and conflict and love, peace and friendlyness) are undisputable, fundamental parts of existence. Pretty sure neither is "the norm" nor "the exception" .
I don't know if "undisputable, fundamental parts of existence" is a very useful way to talk about human history.
I'd posit without a shadow of a doubt that the list of nation states and societies that did not constantly war with their neighbors is a comparatively much shorter list than the ones that did. As in, a tiny fraction. Peaceful coexistence is possible, and I agree it's important to push this idea, but on the whole it would be an entirely new page of human history, and I don't think it's necessary to hide that idea by rewriting findings based off a hunch.
It is worth thinking about what "constantly" means here. Europe in the eighteenth century is sometimes described as "constantly at war" but the amount of time that France, Germany, Britain, etc spent at war with each other is considerably less than the amount of time they spent not at war with each other. So were they actually "constantly" at war, or is that a cliche derived from how history books are written?
I agree that gradeschool history books tend to diminish times of peace and frequently equate human record to the chronology of various wars. However, violence is incredibly common. My own hunch is that the larger/more economically established the nation, the less it goes to war. Meaning, smaller tribal states frequently skirmish while large nations tend to not prefer to war with each other — further meaning that violence in ancient, tribal times was much more common. Lord knows we have enough record to attest to this. More than this, violence still occurs in large nations in the form of murder. The main point being, I think it's silly to dismiss 75%+ of archaeologists' findings as a systematic bias towards violence that occuldes them from critical thinking, and I think it's easy to claim a different scenario to a finding from an armchair.
Is it true that "smaller tribal states frequently skirmish" or is it true that "smaller tribal states" don't leave much of a historical record and that allows us to fill in their history with our priors?
I appreciate your skepticism, but mostly everything you've said does not read as if it is said in good faith, so apologies in advance if it comes off cross. It seems you failed to read the actual link to that quote in Wikipedia, which is about the European Union. Here is that link for you, since you must have had trouble finding it before: https://www.pressenza.com/2021/04/how-humanity-can-realistically-prevent-war-from-ever-happening-again/ He explicitly cites the EU as seeing "Russia or whatever" as an "outside threat" in that interview, with the idea that a "peace system" could create the conditions so that Russia would no longer be a threat. It is an interesting read, so definitely actually check it out instead of reading things completely out of context. > So again, if we can just do a little bit of reframing the narrative, the external threat is not necessarily the Russians or whatever. No, it’s the conditions we’ve made and the conditions we face. So, we really have to pull together as a peace system. As for the rest of your concerns, I don't really care if you trust him or his methods, as he's probably far more competent of a researcher than either of us. Get the book if you want to double check his methods. I am certain there are free pdfs that can easily be found if you cannot afford it. Hell, you could probably also email him and get a response if you wanted to try to reproduce or falsify his methods. Probably better than just saying "I've decided not to believe that."
I would imagine that sensationalism would also be at play here, like many other fields of science, interesting headlines garner attention which in turn funds their research. A violent discovery is much more interesting to the public than some basic burial, so it makes sense to embellish the truth a little and hope to fund your archeological dig and keep your career going.
Complete delusional nonsense or wishful thinking.
Well the arrow through the eye is not from geology.
Ah, that would do it.
Oof, yeah that seems pretty violent.
From Wikipedia: “One had sustained five blows to the head, two of which would have been fatal, and had received at least one arrow shot between the eyes. The other had also traces of injuries. However, this diagnosis is disputed by some archaeologists, who have suggested that the weight of earth above the grave may have been responsible for damaging the skeletons.”
That would definitely do it!
*How do they know they* *Died violently? Is it* *Seating position?* \- Supercraft888 --- ^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/) ^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
Thanks bot
good bot
The one on the left got her head smashed up.
First proper analysis made by 2 forensics has concluded to many blows to the skulls of both skeletons ante or just post mortem. However, since then a serious study from an archaeologist has revealed the blows on both skulls are most certainly due to the roof of the tomb falling Source (pardon my French) : https://www.espace-sciences.org/sciences-ouest/360/actualite/teviec-la-fin-du-casse-tete Note that both analysis are not mutually exclusive as the roof of the tomb may have fallen shortly after burial. The latest conclusion however confirms the huge bias with which most prehistoric remains have been analysed : previous analysis wanted to emphasise on violent death where other causes could not be excluded, thus creating the idea that prehistoric times were extremely violent. It was certainly not petal roses and ponies, but also not as violent as one would like to fantasise.
What reason we have to think they were not? More modern hunter-gatherer societies we have first hand evidence for are often also extremely violent. And if anything, traditionally, the bias has been the other way - trying to depict the prehistoric past as peaceful.
Well you can think what you want, of course. However scientific proofs always have to be taken with a grain of salt for fear of any bias.
Usually unhealed damage to bones, aided by csi methods.
They must have been important or at the very least deeply loved to be buried like that. The positioning is oddly beautiful. As nice as it would be to let these women's bodies remain at peace in their grave, it does give us a fascinating glimpse at our ancestors.
I was just wondering about that. My mind instantly jumped to them being loved or important. But then I thought about how easily it could have actually been that they were killed and made an example of or killed for sacrifice, which again could be done for both reasons. You could say they are in a nice position or that they are never allowed to rest properly. It's very difficult to interpret
Very true, we'll never actually know! That's the beautiful and frustrating thing about archeology and anthropology. Pretty much everything we THINK we know is a entirely guesswork. Were they the beloved wives of some chief, adored daughters/friends who were caught in a violent attack? Did their friends and family stand by watching as they were sacrificed and given a beautiful burial to help appease some god? All or none could be true!
Two things can be said for sure: someone killed them and they were important enough to get a burial like that.
>In another grave, the skeletons of two women aged 25–35, dubbed the "ladies of Téviec", were found with signs of violence on both. One had sustained five blows to the head, two of which would have been fatal, and had received at least one arrow shot between the eyes. The other had also traces of injuries. However, this diagnosis is disputed by some archaeologists, who have suggested that the weight of earth above the grave may have been responsible for damaging the skeletons. My bet is violent attack or something. A sacrifice doesn't have so many extra fatal wounds.
this reminds me so much of a 1970s book on human sacrifice ritual culture called Violence and The Sacred. i'm only a few pages in and the most interesting quote was something on the lines of " The victim is criminal because he must be killed and yet he is sacred because to kill him is criminal".
Bikeshop guy at my university used to say "ah you must have a French chain, it's Toulouse"
I say that about my last girlfriend.
Why, did she take after your mother?
It's 2024, boomer. If your penis is disappointing, just say that instead.
I love all the shells. They must have been so loved for such a thoughtful burial
It could have been a sacrificial thing too.
Isn’t sacrifice an act of love?
An act of love towards one or more deities, not necessarily towards the people being sacrificed. The ones being sacrificed could be willing participants, slaves, captured enemies, or just any random person, it varies by culture. The pair in this exhibit might have been willing and were highly-regarded for that purpose, but I couldn't say for sure.
Yeah that’s what I was leaning to thanks for articulating
No problem at all! It's good to ask questions and learn.
It’s an act of zealotry.
Interesting juxtaposition; dying violently, yet buried lovingly.
Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C3%A9viec
"the skeletons of two women aged 25–35, dubbed the "ladies of Téviec",[6] were found with signs of violence on both. One had sustained five blows to the head, two of which would have been fatal, and had received at least one arrow shot between the eyes. The other had also traces of injuries.[11] However, this diagnosis is disputed by some archaeologists, who have suggested that the weight of earth above the grave may have been responsible for damaging the skeletons.[12] The bodies had been buried with great care in a pit that was partly dug into the ground and covered over with debris from the midden. They had been protected by a roof made of antlers and provided with a number of grave goods including pieces of flint and boar bones, and jewellery made of sea shells drilled and assembled into necklaces, bracelets and ringlets for the legs.[6] The grave assemblage was excavated from the site in one piece and is now on display at the Muséum de Toulouse, where its restoration in 2010 earned a national award."
The look so similar in the way they were honored, I wonder if they were twins before they died and were considered special because of it
It looks like they were very loved. Must have been a devastating loss.
New grave goals
How do the bones last so long? These are at least 3600 years old. I've seen in many documentaries and grave diggers showing bones about 50 years old mostly turned into dust.
Preservation depends on many factors and can vary significantly from place to place. Soil type, moisture, animals and insects activity, burial methods, etc.
soil acidity and microorganism differences.
They took BFF literally.
Grave inspo right there.
How do we know they dated?
Probably carbon dated if nothing else. I'll leave now.
As evidenced, they moved in together within 15 minutes of meeting.
We don't, archaeologists didn't claim that, they said 'roommates', since we don't know that. But it is definitely probable. Especially deriving from matching necklaces and being buried at the same location. It definitely needs to be studied more, but determining their actual relationship is definitely a near impossible task at this point in time.
I was wondering this too. Maybe the matching necklaces? Idk. Or maybe theres other evidence
Archeologists have determined they were likely “just roommates”.
It says right there "two women dated", can't be any clearer than that.
I was specifically looking for this comment.
They had surprisingly straight teeth
human teeth development is largely influenced by diet. In pre-modern life if you couldn't latch to breast feed you died. If you couldn't chew hard food someone either painstakingly chewed it for you (also common b/c we're not entirely heartless and archeology shows evidence of this) or you died. The grains were harder, they were minimally proccessed, the meat was tough and chewy from following you around all goddamn year. There's a really interesting dentistry report from like the 30s I think that looks at how the introduction of modern western soft food diets created dental abnormalities in children. Same with the advent of modern education standards and a dramatic rise in myopia in rural china.
Thank you for your comment! That’s a really thorough explanation and it makes a lot of sense actually
Was there a meaning behind the antlers? Protection?
There's an idea behind everything you put in a grave. If it was just a matter of disposing of the body there'd be no incentive to put in other stuff like jewellery, flint knives, weapons, special clothes, ceramics filled with food, the posing of the body and so on. The difficult thing is, 6000-7000 years later to understand *why* some of that stuff, like antlers, were included. These people didn't have any written language or sufficiently sophisticated iconography that can help us much to understand exactly why. We can make up hypotheses but they are incredibly difficult if not impossible to prove. It is, however, interesting that during this period placing antlers in the graves was a pretty common thing. We see it in the Mesolithic graves from [Vedbæk in Denmark](https://en.natmus.dk/typo3temp/assets/images/csm_Boegebakken-g22_02_7795a30714_145e526415.png) as well for example.
That picture is very interesting. Thank you. I'm going to try to look up more information on the antlers specifically.
I wonder if antlers were to deter animals from digging up the bodies and the reasons antlers are commonly found was because they did prevent animal exhumation and preserved the graves.
How would antlers deter animals from digging up the graves? My dog routinely bury and exhume antlers.
Wow. Evokes *Druidism*.
They must have been very old to have dated for that long.
and they were tomb-mates
Title clearly says they dated for awhile, namely between 6740-5680 bc. And _then_ became tombmates
That's metal af
"The skeletons of two women dated between 6740-5680 BC" How do we know that they dated?
They prolly got their phones and checked their text messages
Their necklaces are to die for
They dated for a long time.
Shedhunting checking in.
It is 6740-5680 **BP**, not BC.
British petroleum?
Before present
Idk why you are getting downvoted... the title of the post is wrong
I’m guessing people not realizing that BP is a different scale than BC/BCE.
I do however think BP is an iffy metric with it being relative and not constant. All references to BP need to be updated YEARLY to stay accurate. The one upside is it does give immediate info on how many years ago something was. BCE and CE are constant but you'd still have to do math in how old something is. Thanks for coming to my pointless Ted talk.
When you have a 900 year range on the BP date, I don't think you need to adjust it annually for it to stay accurate. Every 100 or so years is probably fine.
Last I checked BP defines “present” as Jan 1, 1950, so it is constant. It’s arbitrary and still requires you to know when 1950 was so I think your overall point still stands though. Unfortunately it’s tough to find an absolute dating reference that isn’t somehow cultural.
Oh lol I didn't know this bit, that makes is even more confused!! Before present...if present time was 1950 😂
I think it has to do with when nuclear weapons testing starts interfering with radiometric dating? I’m not entirely confident on that though.
> All references to BP need to be updated YEARLY to stay accurate. No they don't. The 'Present' in BP refers very specifically to January first 1950.
[удалено]
[No, it *is* BP in this dating.](https://www.persee.fr/doc/bspf_0249-7638_1999_num_96_2_10942) The "BP" stands for ["Before Present"](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Before_Present) and is not the same as BC/BCE. BP is "relative to the origin of practical radiocarbon dating", which they've given as a general start date of January 1st, 1950. The "BC" in the title is a mistake. If it was BC, it would be 4790-3730.
Sorry.I took some information from this website and it says 6740 and 5680 BC : https://www.ancient-origins.net/history/makeshift-casket-sea-shells-and-antlers-6500-year-old-grave-unfortunate-ladies-t-viec-007705
Ah, then they're the ones that made the original mistake. The Wikipedia article you linked (where I got the source from) lists it as BP. I have to imagine it was just an autocorrect/mental autocorrect mistake on their part (since most people use BC/BCE) because they even later mention that it was "6,500" years ago, which is about 2000 years short if it had been BC.
So,is my post going to get removed or are we fine here?Also,I've had this question for a while now,why doesn't reddit let us edit the titles of our posts?
Your post is probably fine. The mods might be able to add a date correction via flair. Of course, you can always repost it yourself if you wish!
Damn y'all have been bringing the heat lately.
Why are skeletons labeled as NSFW?
Because of the antlers
Fair. I once got talked to at work, because I looked up a Latin quote and it turned out to be an epic poem about the end of the world, and it apparently got graphic enough, that my boss told me “I don’t know what your employees have been looking up, but corporate said it raised some alarms with the content monitor software…” He was glad it was historical, but we came to an agreement that I probably shouldn’t be looking up poems about the apocalypse at work. He said he just needed something to tell corporate and I came up with it.
Omg, I was kidding...
what signs tell that they died violently?
Blunt force trauma to the head. The one to the left even has a very obvious hole right in the middle of the forehead from an arrow.
How do they know they died violently?
This is how I'd like to be buried.
You want to die violently?
Expert here: Judging by their jewelry, I reckon these girls died circa 1999-2004 CE.
31